I'm certain you'll get a volunteer soon.
[News] The USA Police State will never satisfy its lust for beating, gassing, and imprisoning minorities
- Thread starter Charlie Don't Surf
- Start date
2016 problems - not sure whether to post the Baton Rouge killings here since it's apparently targeting cops, or in the mass shooting thread. It's sad either way, though.
Here's the guardian live thread - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2016/jul/17/baton-rouge-police-officers-shooting-louisiana , there isn't much concrete information yet. CNN is going with 3 dead, 7 wounded.
She's a verified local reporter there.
Here's the guardian live thread - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2016/jul/17/baton-rouge-police-officers-shooting-louisiana , there isn't much concrete information yet. CNN is going with 3 dead, 7 wounded.
She's a verified local reporter there.
Is this the massively edited video produced by a defense attorney? Or one of the three videos released by the chief in the interests of transparancy?
The attorney for Patrick Mumford explains what was done to the video in a reply to Police Chief Joseph H. Lumpkin's Facebook post on the matter. (PINAC)
I believe these videos represent the raw footage:
It certainly casts some doubt on the tactic of "do what the police officer says and sue them afterwards."Charles Kinsey was not the suspect. Charles Kinsey was unarmed. Charles Kinsey complied. Got shot anyway.
When asked why he shot, the officer replied, "I dunno."
This officer is fucked, and ftom what I've seen, rightfully so. Investigation will out the facts.Charles Kinsey was not the suspect. Charles Kinsey was unarmed. Charles Kinsey complied. Got shot anyway.
When asked why he shot, the officer replied, "I dunno."
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
You're a good cop, stop defending the bad ones. Oooh, I said something mildly distasteful about cops who shot a dude for no reason, yeah, I'm the asshole in the situation.
In other news, we're at just under 600 people killed by police in 2016 (currently at 598). 556 by gunshot, 15 by taser, 12 struck by vehicle, 14 died in custody, 1 via robot bomb.
the inclusion of the robot bomb in there suggests to me that your stats are saying that nearly 600 asshole murderers have been killed during the commission of their asshole crimes.
No, it was listing causes of death at the hands of police, whether justified or not. That you assume that all deaths at the hands of police are justified is a problem.
Source: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...un/01/the-counted-police-killings-us-database
That is kind of literally the job of internal affairs, isn't it? Part of the problem is that not every department has the resources to do thorough internal investigations or the manpower to spare to have an officer suspended from duty while under investigation.
The question is will the other officers even cooperate in the investigation? If IA asks them what happened, will they say anything that will implicate the bad cop? Or will they just rehearse a fabricated story out of a misguided sense of brotherhood?
Annnnnnnd, most likely, if history is to repeat itself, AGAIN, at most a slap on the wrist is what will happen.
If you're shooting a person who is laying on the ground, unarmed, having committed no crime, with their hands clearly visible, you shouldn't be a cop.The new explanation is, "I was shooting at the other guy and missed."
If you're shooting at a mentally disabled person who isn't committing a crime, because you can't tell the difference between a toy car and a gun, you shouldn't be a cop.
If you're shooting at two people not resisting and not committing a crime, you should be in prison.
Unless the person you shot was black, then it's okay, and other officers will help you get away with it.
I'm sure the police members of the forum will find that very unfair. Well, tough shit. Police have lost the benefit of the doubt due to too many incidents of blatant abuse of African-Americans. Stop defending bad cops. Hold each other accountable.
I have been questioned by IA, both in conjunction with my own episode, and with other officers. They ask questions in the same manner as a courtroom proceeding - not leading, not prompting, simply asking to recount the facts of the case, as remembered.
I was cleared in my incident. The other officer received a suspension for his, and later quit.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
We hold ourselves accountable. We despise the bad cops, because they cause normally calm people to lash out. I'm sorry that you seem to think that there's a coverup, because none of us want to be associated with idiots like this.
I continue to learn more and more about folks here....
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
Which is no better, and shows parents of autistic children their worst nightmare. :/The new explanation is, "I was shooting at the other guy and missed."
Don't ever stop.
Opinions change all the time. Just when you get someone figured out, they'll do something new.
--Patrick
Gee, it's kind of like dozens of reported incidents in which officers weren't prosecuted or were given minimal punishment for fatal incidents have eroded my trust in the police.
When I posted the video of the cops tasering the wrong guy, you didn't say "Well, they clearly made a mistake," or even "I wouldn't have done that, but I can see how they would have." You wanted to know what the source of it was, implying that it was altered to show the police in a negative light. That's an automatic assumption that the cops were justified and that the people who released the video were wrong.
When I posted the video of the cops tasering the wrong guy, you didn't say "Well, they clearly made a mistake," or even "I wouldn't have done that, but I can see how they would have." You wanted to know what the source of it was, implying that it was altered to show the police in a negative light. That's an automatic assumption that the cops were justified and that the people who released the video were wrong.
Being that I know and am friends with 2 out of the 3, it's sort of hard to have an uncolored judgement, don't you think?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
Did they do wrong in that situation, based on what you see?
And if not, walk us through it, explain why it is justifiable.
Last edited:
Well, that isn't a very fair request, considering his personal ties. What do you expect to accomplish? That he will demonstrate his admitted personal bias? That he'll throw his acquaintances under the bus? What kind of discussion is possible in this specific circumstance?
The entire situation on Martha St could have been avoided by a simple identification by the suspect. He refused to provide either name or ID to the officers upon being requested - LITERALLY the first thing asked in the first video. Had he done so, the issue could have been resolved quickly.
Instead, he played the typical "I didn't do nothing," that we hear DAILY from suspects on incidents ranging from shoplifting to aggravated assault. Suspects who have later turned out to be guilty. Pardon me for treating such a statement with a bit of skepticism.
The alternative to tazing an uncooperative suspect who is constantly reaching into and around a car is to act with strong physical violence, up to and including deadly force if a weapon is suspected.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
Instead, he played the typical "I didn't do nothing," that we hear DAILY from suspects on incidents ranging from shoplifting to aggravated assault. Suspects who have later turned out to be guilty. Pardon me for treating such a statement with a bit of skepticism.
The alternative to tazing an uncooperative suspect who is constantly reaching into and around a car is to act with strong physical violence, up to and including deadly force if a weapon is suspected.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
Heh. I was gonna say the same thing (but do so more obtusely) so brofist.[DOUBLEPOST=1469213794,1469213584][/DOUBLEPOST]
Hey, that also answers my question from earlier.
So "I'm Patrick" isn't providing his name?
Anyway, I appreciate your explanation, and while I don't necessarily agree, and feel that the officers acted with excessive aggression towards an innocent party, I acknowledge that it is not as cut and dry as it appears on the video.[DOUBLEPOST=1469223757,1469223457][/DOUBLEPOST]
Basically, yes, I wanted him to either admit that he would defend whatever his fellow officers did, or acknowledge that they made a mistake. Which they did.
No, put him on the spot and wanted him to tell you that his friends (not acquaintances, not "fellow officers", his actual friends) were giant asshole douchebags or else he was a bad guy too. That's what your tone implied. Even after he SAID they were his friends and he was going to be biased. Also, let's not start down the path of not questioning things when they happen. Questioning is not evil in and of itself.
Fair enough.No, put him on the spot and wanted him to tell you that his friends (not acquaintances, not "fellow officers", his actual friends) were giant asshole douchebags or else he was a bad guy too. That's what your tone implied. Even after he SAID they were his friends and he was going to be biased. Also, let's not start down the path of not questioning things when they happen. Questioning is not evil in and of itself.